User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 59

  1. #21
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Guess View Post
    The process matters if its execution renders the original end moot. If not, however, and there is no alternative, using unsavoury means to prevent a far worse outcome is justified.
    How do you know what the outcome will be?

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    How do you know what the outcome will be?
    If you have foreseen a worse outcome, using methods of deduction, taking precedent into account, measuring the facts at hand, and judging the probability of such an outcome resulting, and you take the necessary steps to prevent it, that is justified. Even if the outcome does not end up materializing, the cost of ignoring a warning to a dire consequence is greater than the cost of preparing for a potentially catastrophic situation by any means necessary. With any decision that could have dire consequences, it is always better to err on the safe side.

  3. #23
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Guess View Post
    If you have foreseen a worse outcome, using methods of deduction, taking precedent into account, measuring the facts at hand, and judging the probability of such an outcome resulting, and you take the necessary steps to prevent it, that is justified. Even if the outcome does not end up materializing, the cost of ignoring a warning to a dire consequence is greater than the cost of preparing for a potentially catastrophic situation by any means necessary.
    This again assumes that there's only one "correct" course of action. Most often, there are many different ways to achieve end goal. Win/win can usually be accomplished.

  4. #24
    Lay the coin on my tongue SilkRoad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,939

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chiharu View Post
    I have many moral implications and comparatively few moral truths/beliefs. Basically I have several core beliefs I'm not willing to compromise, and then I read into them and find applicable shades of morality for a given situation. The shades are quite fluid, and I'm very open to discussion/compromise on them, but the closer it gets to the core value the more stubborn and sure I become.
    I'm not good at articulating this sort of thing, so I will say that the above seems fairly close to my approach. I have some black and white principles and beliefs which I won't compromise on, but around those I feel it's more about principles than black and white rules. Depending on the situation, some could be pretty flexible/grey area, others seem more defined. I'm really not good at putting it into words.
    Female
    INFJ
    Enneagram 6w5 sp/sx


    I DOORSLAMMING

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    This again assumes that there's only one "correct" course of action. Most often, there are many different ways to achieve end goal. Win/win can usually be accomplished.
    In a desperate situation, a win/win situation can't be counted on; what if the other side is unwilling to negotiate? Or, worse still, what if they break their agreement, and cause the original disaster you had foreseen, and this time, have you completely unprepared for it? If you can find a better way, then by all means, take it. Keep in mind, though, that relying on the goodwill of the other side is asking for trouble. If there is no better way, that will, by default, justify any means you must take to that end.

  6. #26
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Guess View Post
    In a desperate situation, a win/win situation can't be counted on; what if the other side is unwilling to negotiate? Or, worse still, what if they break their agreement, and cause the original disaster you had foreseen, and this time, have you completely unprepared for it? If you can find a better way, then by all means, take it. Keep in mind, though, that relying on the goodwill of the other side is asking for trouble. If there is no better way, that will, by default, justify any means you must take to that end.
    We could set up a million "if" conditions that align with your subjective view of why it's acceptable to enact horrific deeds. But they're all strawmen when you drill down to two core facts:

    - No one can predict the future.
    - There isn't only "right" path.

    It's exactly the line of reasoning suggested that led to the atrocities enacted at Guatanamo Bay.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    We could set up a million "if" conditions that align with your subjective view of why it's acceptable to enact horrific deeds. But they're all strawmen when you drill down to two core facts:

    - No one can predict the future.
    - There isn't only "right" path.

    It's exactly the line of reasoning suggested that led to the atrocities enacted at Guatanamo Bay.
    Again, like I said before, your first point would make planning for any future event completely pointless; sometimes, you have no choice but to anticipate the future. As for your second point, while there might be multiple paths to take, there is one which will have an objectively more beneficial result; following this path is what a decision maker should try to do (of course, what constitutes beneficial is somewhat debatable). As for your third point, Guantanamo Bay was arguably not justified, since it didn't end up doing its job well enough; it ended up creating as many terrorists as it detained, and caused American support around the world to drop. It caused more problems than it ended up solving, and it rendered its original purpose moot, which is why it was not justified.

  8. #28
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Guess View Post
    Again, like I said before, your first point would make planning for any future event completely pointless; sometimes, you have no choice but to anticipate the future. As for your second point, there are situations where, while there might be multiple paths to take, there is one which will have an objectively more beneficial result. As for your third point, Guantanamo Bay was arguably not justified, since it didn't end up doing its job well enough; it ended up creating as many terrorists as it detained, and caused American support around the world to drop. It caused more problems than it ended up solving, and it rendered its original purpose moot, which is why it was not justified.
    1. Nowhere have I stated that you shouldn't try to anticipate the future. The distinction lies with understanding that anticipation of the future doesn't make it a guaranteed future.
    2. As far as objectively more beneficial results this is subjective, reliant on whether you factor in negative actions, how you weigh the concrete negative actions against the conceptual potential benefits. In other words, shall we bake all the Jews to benefit the German economy? Shall we conquer China, so the Japanese people can thrive?
    3. Again, the path taken for Guatanamo Bay was done so from a purported greater good stance. What are the lives and emotional and physical health of very few, as compared to the potential of another 9/11? Let's flip the scenario as viewed by "Islamic freedom fighters". Considering the past policies of the U.S., what's the lives of 3000 people or more, weighed against the entire wellbeing of the Middle East?

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    1. Nowhere have I stated that you shouldn't try to anticipate the future. The distinction lies with understanding that anticipation of the future doesn't make it a guaranteed future.
    2. As far as objectively more beneficial results this is subjective, reliant on whether you factor in negative actions, how you weigh the concrete negative actions against the conceptual potential benefits. In other words, shall we bake all the Jews to benefit the German economy? Shall we conquer China, so the Japanese people can thrive?
    3. Again, the path taken for Guatanamo Bay was done so from a purported greater good stance. What are the lives and emotional and physical health of very few, as compared to the potential of another 9/11? Let's flip the scenario as viewed by "Islamic freedom fighters". Considering the past policies of the U.S., what's the lives of 3000 people or more, weighed against the entire wellbeing of the Middle East?
    Interesting points.

    1. No, you did not say that you shouldn't try to anticipate the future in as many words; however, since the future is rarely if ever guaranteed, waiting to act only on a guaranteed future amounts to that.

    2. Continuing the World War II theme, what I had said was that, if there is a better way to go about doing something, it should be done. The Nazis were unwilling to look for such an option which would have resulted in less suffering. An option like this was arguably possible, since the German economic gains came seperately from the Nazi Party's anti-Jewish stance. The Japanese invasions had less to do with preventing a catastrophe or causing a gain than they did with satisfying the militaristic fascism that had come over its military and political leaders; 99.9% of the Japanese excesses during the war were not being done for some greater good or as a matter of necessity, but were done because of nihilistic, amoral hedonism.

    3. The intent was for the greater good; it wasn't justified because that greater good was not fully realized, since it ended up harming its own cause more than it helped it. As for the American policy in the Middle East, every country will look out for its own interests before it does a foreign country's; it's a reality of geopolitics, and not one that will, or should, end. The American military is concerned with defending American interests, not Middle Eastern interests; its policy should not be concerned with what would benefit the Middle East, unless that also carries a benefit to the US. As for the terrorists' point of view, if they were not harming their own cause, one could say that, from their own perspective, they might be justified; the reason we wouldn't want to justify it, of course, is because we are on the receiving end of their hatred. Looking at it personally, I would want them to lose; looking at it objectively, both sides would be justified in their actions. However, the terrorists are harming their own cause, which means that their actions have undermined their goal, which means that they are not justified.

    (By the way, before you say anything, no, I'm not an American.)

  10. #30
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Guess View Post
    Interesting points.

    1. No, you did not say that you shouldn't try to anticipate the future in as many words; however, since the future is rarely if ever guaranteed, waiting to act only on a guaranteed future amounts to that.

    2. Continuing the World War II theme, what I had said was that, if there is a better way to go about doing something, it should be done. The Nazis were unwilling to look for an option which resulted in less suffering, which was arguably possible, since the German economic gains could have come without the Holocaust. The Japanese invasions had less to do with preventing a catastrophe or causing a gain than they did with satisfying the militaristic fascism that had come over its military and political leaders; 99.9% of the Japanese excesses during the war were not being done for some greater good or as a matter of necessity, but were done because of nihilistic, amoral hedonism.

    3. The intent was for the greater good; it wasn't justified because that greater good was not fully realized, since it ended up harming its own cause more than it helped it. As for the American policy in the Middle East, every country will look out for its own interests before it does a foreign country's; it's a reality of geopolitics, and not one that will, or should, end. The American military is concerned with defending American interests, not Middle Eastern interests; its policy should not be concerned with what would benefit the Middle East, unless that also carries a benefit to the US.

    (By the way, before you say anything, no, I'm not an American.)
    • Note how hindsight is 20/20? Until you take a course of action, the results won't be crystallised. No one can predict the future, including outcome of actions taken.
    • Note how your points are based on subjectivity and not objectivity? Let's move in a macro direction. Asteroid will hit the Earth. Why must we save the human race, considering the destruction enacted on the Earth by human beings? Let nature take its course and allow the resulting species who survive, reassert a dominance hierarchy where hopefully, the dominant species won't be so destructive.

Similar Threads

  1. Type and Handwriting
    By Ivy in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 591
    Last Post: 10-13-2017, 02:49 AM
  2. Thinking types and their emotions.
    By Athenian200 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-26-2014, 02:06 PM
  3. Personality Types and Music
    By SuperServal in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 102
    Last Post: 10-15-2012, 06:37 PM
  4. Types and Revenge
    By Natrushka in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 08-20-2010, 06:52 AM
  5. Is there a correlation between type and military enlistment?
    By Cindyrella in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 07-20-2007, 10:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO